Thursday, December 29, 2011

Did Washington Ask God for Help at His First Inauguration?


Whether George Washington invoked God's name at the end of his official presidential oath has become a debate that obscures a more obvious truth, one that sheds light more on the man himself than on any ideological agenda in today's so-called Culture War. The man who took the oath of office in April 1789 was scared to death of what might become of his beloved country and his almost equally beloved reputation. He wanted all the providential help he could get.

Did Washington Say "So Help Me God"?

Did George Washington add "so help me God" to the presidential oath? That question has become one of the flashpoints in today's so-called Culture War. And American Creation's Ray Soller continues the debate in a well-researched, articulate response (see "Jerry-Rigging the Presidential Oath With The Wall Builders") to David Barton's claim that Washington indeed said the words (see "Did George Washington Actually Say 'So Help Me God' During His Inauguration?"). (Note: I would link to Mr. Soller's article, but the title link goes to a different post by Mr. Soller than the one I'm trying to reference).

I've blogged about Washington's first inauguration before (see "Facts About George Washington's Inauguration") and have addressed the issue of Washington and SHMG in numerous posts and discussions here at American Creation. There's little value in repeating all that again. I will simply say that I believe Washington said the words, but I acknowledge I can't prove it. No one can prove the issue one way or the other. But, if I may ask your indulgence, let's take a moment and reflect on this question from a different angle.

The Wrong Question?

In my opinion, the issue of whether Washington said "so help me God" is a pointless dispute in the so-called Culture War. Those who want a completely secular presidential oath already have their wish, in that the legal oath, as prescribed in the Constitution, makes no mention of God. What's more, the Constitution expressly forbids any religious test for federal office. It is unconstitutional and improper for the one administering the oath to require or demand (by coercision, intimidation, or manipulation) that the President-elect append "so help me God" to the oath. Those who desire a secular presidential oath already have their wish.

Likewise, for faith-oriented conservatives caught up in the so-called Culture War, this is the wrong battle. So what if George Washington added "so help me God" to the presidential oath? For the first time around, he probably did. The second time around, he probably didn't. Then again, he may not have said "so help me God" at either time. Do social conservatives really want to pin so much on this one dispute?

I mean no disrespect to anyone with strong feelings on this issue. I applaud the desire of anyone to get at the truth, to uncover the facts, and/or to better understand our nation's history. Ray Soller here at American Creation has done a commendable job in pointing out the lack of evidence surrounding the assumption made by many over the years that Washington added "so help me God" to the presidential oath. And Mr. Soller does well in responding to David Barton's latest attempt to argue that the Washington SHMG tradition is accurate. Nevertheless, after reading the arguments of both men, I once again come to the inescapable truth that neither side can provide verifiable proof. We just don't know whether Washington said the words or not.

I personally like how Ron Chernow handles the issue in his biography Washington: A Life. Chernow writes: "Legend has it that [Washington] added 'So help me God,' though this line was first reported sixty-five years later. Whether or not Washington actually said it, very few people would have heard him anyway, since his voice was soft and breathy." Nicely done. I personally would've said "tradition" instead of "legend," but I like how Chernow handles the matter, especially how he only devotes a couple sentences to it, and then moves on.

The debate over Washington and SHMG will likely continue, but I don't think this calls for the kind of emotion that's been devoted to it. If Washington said "so help me God," that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution itself (which supersedes Washington in authority and importance) doesn't call for the words to be added. Even if Washington added "so help me God," everyone present would've understood it to be a personal addition to the legally prescribed oath. Washington's addition (if indeed he said the words) did not alter the official oath, nor did it change the Constitution's prohibition of a religious test. When a President-elect says "so help me God" after the oath, he is simply adding his personal sentiment. He's not writing law. He is asking God to help him fulfill his legal obligations.

On the other hand, if Washington did not say "so help me God," that hardly makes him a secular Deist who wanted to distance God from government. Washington's First Inaugural Address, which contains overt religious themes, puts to rest any possible misunderstanding along those lines. No matter whether Washington said the words "so help me God" or not, the historical fact is that the first President of the United States wove religious imagery and sentiment into his inauguration. No one can dispute this, as the record is abundantly clear.

A Glimpse into Washington's Mind

Fisher Ames recorded that Washington looked "grave, almost to sadness" at the time of his inauguration. One senator said the President-elect was "agitated and embarrassed." These men noticed how Washington felt, which was, as he confessed to his friend Henry Knox, as a "culprit who is going to the place of his execution." Washington felt the enormous strain of responsibility being thrust upon his shoulders, along with the unrealistic expectations of so many of his countrymen. Who wouldn't be a little stressed? And who wouldn't want a little help?

I believe this is what we are missing when we debate the issue of "so help me God." If Washington indeed said the words, it wasn't to make some kind of political point, and I think he'd be very disappointed if activists today tried to do so. Rather, Washington was genuinely vexed, and he sincerely needed help from Divine Providence. This much is certain when one looks at the Inaugural Address itself.

In his Inaugural Address, the newly sworn-in President confessed that "no event could have filled me with greater anxieties" than being called upon to serve as President. He referred to the "the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my country called me" and cited his own "inferior endowments." He admitted he was "peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies," and in that context, he moved to the religious portion of his speech, in which he declared:

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge."

This isn't Washington trying to be a culture warrior. It's Washington confessing his fear and anxiety (albeit in a strained, formal, 18th century manner) and confidently asserting that God can compensate for "every human defect." To the extent that this is a statement in the so-called Culture War today, it's only because the United States has become more culturally and religiously diverse - and more distant from our heritage (the latter not necessarily being a good thing). In the 18th century, no one would've heard these words with offense. They would've welcomed them as an affirmation of Washington's humility and faith, qualities they desired in a leader. If one were to ask the attendees that day if they heard or thought Washington had asked God for help after his inauguration, all of them would have pointed to his Inaugural Address as opposed to what he may or may not have whispered following the legal oath.

Whether Washington said "so help me God" or not after his oath is simply not a relevant issue to the Culture War. For that matter, neither is the debate over the painting of Washington praying at Valley Forge. The painting may very well be apocryphal in how it depicts Washington, but does anyone seriously doubt Washington prayed during the long winter at Valley Forge - at least once or twice!? Washington was a man of prayer, and there were times in his life (such as at Valley Forge and when taking the oath of office as President) that he needed God and turned to prayer. No credible historian disputes this. The evidence is clear.

Once again, I mean no disrespect to anyone engaged in this debate. I commend both Mr. Barton and Mr. Soller for well-written essays. Mr. Soller, in particular, has written extensively on the subject, and I applaud his research. But I do (respectfully) feel we're losing sight of the forest for the trees. When it comes to Washington's inauguration, let's not allow a peripheral debate to obscure what is of much greater interest and importance, that of gaining insight into the mind of George Washington and the extraordinary challenges he faced when becoming our first President.

16 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Anyone in leadership has responsibilities that they are accountable for....which should scare the **** out of ANYBODY in today's world!!! (and I say that NOT to be offensive, but for effect/emphasis!)....Such was the cause of the American Revolution.

People ARE arguing about peripheral issues, as far as I am concerned, because our economy stinks, men are out of work and the world is at the brink of being "blown up"! And what is the FREE WORLD arguing over? whether someone is a Christian or not or whether the nation can survive apart from Christian faith, or some OTHER nonsense!!!

WE are a PEOPLE, that won't last till the of the decade IF we don't answer some of the problems and challenges that are facing us!

I sure hope that the movies that are coming out, such as IRON LADY will have some impact upon those that are so caught up in the religious debates!

George Washington was great because he recognized his frailty before large and looming needs before him...It would do our leader well to also recognize the complexities, without being trite about them and thinking only of their political careers!

I hope that Americans WILL be thankful for their liberties and it does NOT MATTER whether they thank God or thank the leaders of the past....we just must NOT take our liberty for granted!

It is so disheartening to have such debates that make no differences to real world politic....

Magpie Mason said...

Bravo, Brian!

Jay

Angie Van De Merwe said...

The greater question I have is; In a world where extremism is dangerous, how can one act as a George Washington, without causing another war with a "Britain"?

George Washington or many others that came to America and fought for liberty were considered courageous, but they had to be committed to such a task with a vision and hope that could not be deterred. Such radicalism might be dangerous in today's world, where radicalism is the problem, isn't it?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

at least dangerous for religious zeal...maybe not so dangerous in our political realm....

Phil Johnson said...

,
Good grief!
.
Beside the quesion of whether or not So Help Me God was in the oath George Washington gave is another question I would like to see answered.
.
Where is it seen that George Washington, in any instance when he spoke the words, God or Divine Providence, always each and every time meant Jehovah God of the King James Bible?
.
The quote given in your talk, Brian, seems very Masonic to me. I have it in my thinking that G.W. believed in the God of Nature.
.
The God of Nature was quite popular in the Eighteenth Century when Universalism was on the rise.
.
But, everyone knows that.
.
Right?
.
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Phil.
Some section the 18th century as the Age of Reason....followed by the Age of Romanticism in the 19th century.

Romanticism based on sentiment/feeling

Transcendentalism (Emerson,Whitman, etc.) were those that spoke and wrote of romanticizing nature (human and "the green" ;-) )...
Pragmatism
William James and Schliemacher gave us ways of cultural diversity and plurality....and a sentimental dependence/feeling upon "God"....

At least that is what I think I remember....wrong? corrections anyone?

Tom Van Dyke said...

The God of Nature was quite popular in the Eighteenth Century when Universalism was on the rise.
.
But, everyone knows that.
.
Right?


That's not even remotely what "Universalism" is, Phil. I realize now that you don't understand what Jonathan Rowe writes about all the time, let alone me. Dang.

Phil Johnson said...

.
I read your comment, Tom.
.
Happy New Year to all.
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Well, if one is talking within the Academy the question of universalism would be answered like I segmented history.

But, if you are talking about human rights,and/ro natural rights, then you are talking about government. These were the arguments politicians used to defend the Revolution and the right of resistance, as in the DOI.

So which values are being questioned as to "universalism"? Academic/historical understanding, or government/public policy/human rights values?

Brad Hart said...

So getting back to Brian's EXCELLENT post...

I think your argument is sound, Brian, so long as you don't take it to the extreme that the Peter Lillback's of the world seem to. I concur that George Washington was CLEARLY a man of faith. What kind of faith and to what degree may be debated (within reason). He was clearly not a Deist or an orthodox Christian but something in between; not quite Thomas Paine, not quite Samuel Adams.

As for SHMG, I don't know and I don't care. Your argument is fullproof on this matter. One could be a die-hard Christian or a complete agnostic and still choose to inclued (or omit) SHMG from one's oath. It makes no difference.

To borrow from Shakespeare, the SHMG issue is "Much Ado About Nothing."

Phil Johnson said...

.
My thinking is that what we call "universalism" today is an outgrowth of an understanding about "God" ever since the Enlightenment which fueled Modernity. It comes out of the thinking of Kant, Schliermacher, and Hegel.
.
During the ending of the Enlightenment, thinkers were being more and more curious about the ideas of "truth" and "god". And, the ideas unfolding were "universalist" in their impact.
.
Contrary to the elitist here who often criticizes those who fail to grasp his perspectives.
.
As far as this "Christian Nation" idea is concerned, it is a perspectival view and nothing anyone comes up with is going to effect much. Universalism gave birth to Deist thinking.
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Reason (intellectual understandng of history) or Pragmatism (practical understanding of government and/or the human) lends itself to different analysis about universal claims.

Academia would understand plurality as human cognition, and transpose these upon "Nature's God", as a political manuever for the religious conscience for a "universal God".....But practical realities (human experience) beg the question of/about "god" himself, which becomes religious and scientific intolerance, as the gap widens as to understandings about 'God' (personal reality or Universal Nature), and where and what the public/private domain means.

Personal realities within the brain (cognition) are personal realities, while "Nature's God" such as the Founders understood was more of a political (and philosophical) appeal, as to form a unified means to make the nation "go forward" and accomplish the task at hand (the American Revolution).

On the matters of the public realities (government) and personal realities (the brain), our liberty of conscience is the only way to allow for human choice, value and commitment. The person is the universal, and a Constitutonal government that is not defined by one particular value, is of importance to affirm liberty. Therefore, the only universalism undermines the personal and private and makes "God" the outside authority or source of "being in the world".

I think the disparity between "then and now" is that there was a social consciousness, as to social structures/institutions that were cohesive units that made for a more unified understanding AND experience!!! Today with divorce rampant, and society openly diverse, there is more question about and openness to many aspects to humans and their choice about values. what makes for meaning and what human flourishing really means....

Phil Johnson said...

.
I think, in respect, that Brian's article brings up the question of how these ideas about "god" impigned on the Founders' thinking.
.
If George Washington ended his oath with So Help Me God we cannot put the intent or purpose of his meaning into the context of our concerns today. It is, in a real way, irrelevant. The present day politics are probably more like what the Founders feared than they are what most of us might be thinking.
.
It seems to me that the main reason we even concern ourselves with this question has to do with a desire to gain power over those who haven't yet been convinced that America was founded to be a Christian nation. Once we've proven that George Washington really did speak the SHMG line, then .....
.
.

Brian Tubbs said...

Phil, I'm just not sure how to reply to your comments. You seem to erecting straw men with what I wrote. My article was designed to take a "minimalist" approach, meaning I was careful not to overreach. I limited my claims to what I think virtually all historians would agree with.

Nowhere did I reference the King James Bible or a "Christian Nation." Yet you took a jab regarding the former and persist in arguing the latter point, not to mention that (as TVD points out) your implied definition of "universalism" doesn't square with what the term really means.

Setting all that aside, let me try to find some common ground with you...

Washington's idea of God, I think, was informed by 18th century colonial Anglicanism, Enlightenment thinking, and 18th century Masonic thinking.

I think there's a difference between 18th century Masonic thinking regarding God and 19th/early 20th century Masonic thinking regarding God, but I won't get into that right now. I also believe there was a difference in thinking about God between 18th century Anglicans and 21st century Anglicans and Episcopalians.

I never claimed (as you seem to think I am doing, if even in some kind of stealthy way) that Washington was endorsing a Christian Nation. I believe Washington spoke of God in ways that would UNITE Americans. He was big on unity, and didn't want to see religion divide America - as it had and was dividing Europe.

But the one thing I am trying to make clear in this article is that Washington believed God was a PERSONAL, INTELLIGENT Entity that answered prayer and gave Providential aid. He did NOT see God in some mystical, abstract, semi-pantheistic way. God was a real Being with an intelligent MIND that related with the human race. And Washington believed that prayer was important in communicating with God.

Brian Tubbs said...

Brad, my article is not making the case that Washington was an orthodox Christian. I am silent on that point in this article. Nevertheless, I disagree with your statement that he "clearly" was not. You can see he was "clearly not a Deist" (Washington himself puts that to rest), but Washington kept things vague and mysterious (deliberately, methinks) on the orthodox side of things. I would say: "He was clearly not a Deist, and kept the specifics of his Christian faith close to his vest."

We are in full agreement on the SMHG thing, which was the main point of my article.

Phil Johnson said...

.
I'm not exactly sure what I wrote that causes you to respond as you did, Brian.
.
What I wrote may have originated from what you wrote; but, it also includes other input that can be imputed into the broader conversation.
.
I almost suspect some pedantic attitude that comments must all relate specifically to what is written in the main article of any thread of discussion here. I don't agree with that thinking. What is written touches on other points participants may sense in their own mind. We're not sitting here like toads waiting to be filled with enlightenment from on high. I hope that makes some sense. I agree with some of what you wrote and I have some disagreements with some of it; but, I don't want to belabor those things. And, just because I make a comment does not mean that I am claiming some truth or another. It's nice when there is intercourse that moves us in a progressive direction. Criticism is not always unwelcome. It's can even help us speak more clearly.
.
The point Tom claims that I don't understand Rowe is an example of how problems can come into being. If I don't understand someone? And, they see that? They have a responsibility to explain themselves rather than just acting like they're so much smarter than anyone else in some lofty place. Do you get my point? I'm not looking for trouble.
.